Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 14
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pathogenic bacteria was tagged for possible copyright infringement (Talk:Pathogenic_bacteria#Copyright tags placed), because of the tables of basic laboratory and clinical characteristics of pathogenic bacteria. The source textbook presented similar short descriptions of each type of bacterial group, including gram staining, shape, capsulation etc, as well as for individual species by transmission, diseases, treatment etc. However, it didn't put all bacterial groups and species, respectively, in rows to make up as large and comprehensive tables as can be seen in the Wikipedia article. Individual box entries are expressed as to avoid close paraphrasing, but there really aren't many ways to express for example "Capsulation: Encapsulated", so a major question is whether the layout itself, with the given column titles, is copyrightable. Please provide additional input at Talk:Pathogenic_bacteria#Copyright tags placed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Before weighing in in this, please examine both the single source, and the WP tables. The tables are large formal subsets of the published, copyrighted material, and at time of tagging (see article edit history), only a single source had been excerpted. Despite some selectivity of excerpting the information, and some creativity in the WP table design, as a table of specialist factual material derived from a single medical textbook (copyrighted source), I proposed to editors at that article that the use, at time of tagging, went beyond standard academic understandings of fair use. As this is a pervasive problem at WP, I applaud @User:Mikael Häggström for bringing this question to wider attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure that standard academic understandings of fair use has anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not follow any rules and understandings from academia. What is important and only important here is whether the content of Pathogenic_bacteria article complies with the USA copyright law. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- This phrase was used to communicate that I have dealt with the issue of fair use, the legalities associated with fair use decisions to appropriate content, for many years in an academic context. That is to say, I am not approaching this as an ignoramus. Yes, understood, the questions is whether the wholesale retyping of precise factual content from a copyrighted medical textbook into a Wikipedia table constitutes fair use (whether in an academic context or at WP). Based on my long experience, as a single sourced table, all content from the one copyrighted source, without any attempt to create a new table with unique attributes, this is not fair use. And I am sure Lippincott and the authors would agree: extend the principle, and say that all tabular information in medical texts is fair game for wholesale reproduction in WP. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do not see much difference with Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co. as both the table and phone directory are exhaustive alphabetic lists of something containing some standard information about this "something". Taking into account that individual box entries were paraphrased, I do not think there is any copyright violation here. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I must strongly disagree. A phone directory and specialist medical content in a copyrighted modern textbook—this is not a comparison I have ever seen made in this type of fair use discussion. The very act of compiling accurate information—of ensuring that strain names are up-to-date with regard to latest of evolving classification and nomenclature, that organisms are indeed Gram positive/negative, that their growth requirements and categorizations as to aerobic/anaerobic, capsulated or non, etc., etc. up to date and accurate—these are not simple acts of one compiling a phone book. Each reference of this type, while containing a table with a similar aim to summarize, contains a unique table of this sort, and each of them are copyrighted by their publishers/authors. I ask that we bring in individuals with legal expertise. As the author communicated, there is little one can do to paraphrase the factual content in a table of pathogenic bacteria, their examples, attributes, etc. Any comparison of the WP table with the original makes clear that it is the same content. What matters here is neither of our "I think" opinions. This is a far-reaching matter. I insist that it be settled firmly, not by accrued opinions of non-lawyers, but by people with position and true legal expertise to address it correctly and decisively. I am content to have this matter closed and my assertions refuted. But not in this superficial, inexpert manner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You still do not get it. The USA copyright law only protects creative expression of the author. It does not protect acts of compiling and verifying information regardless of how much efforts went into such acts. The "Sweat of the brow" doctrine is not a part of the USA copyright law either. The question that we are discussing here has nothing to do with fair use. Ruslik_Zero 20:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I must strongly disagree. A phone directory and specialist medical content in a copyrighted modern textbook—this is not a comparison I have ever seen made in this type of fair use discussion. The very act of compiling accurate information—of ensuring that strain names are up-to-date with regard to latest of evolving classification and nomenclature, that organisms are indeed Gram positive/negative, that their growth requirements and categorizations as to aerobic/anaerobic, capsulated or non, etc., etc. up to date and accurate—these are not simple acts of one compiling a phone book. Each reference of this type, while containing a table with a similar aim to summarize, contains a unique table of this sort, and each of them are copyrighted by their publishers/authors. I ask that we bring in individuals with legal expertise. As the author communicated, there is little one can do to paraphrase the factual content in a table of pathogenic bacteria, their examples, attributes, etc. Any comparison of the WP table with the original makes clear that it is the same content. What matters here is neither of our "I think" opinions. This is a far-reaching matter. I insist that it be settled firmly, not by accrued opinions of non-lawyers, but by people with position and true legal expertise to address it correctly and decisively. I am content to have this matter closed and my assertions refuted. But not in this superficial, inexpert manner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure that standard academic understandings of fair use has anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not follow any rules and understandings from academia. What is important and only important here is whether the content of Pathogenic_bacteria article complies with the USA copyright law. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Before weighing in in this, please examine both the single source, and the WP tables. The tables are large formal subsets of the published, copyrighted material, and at time of tagging (see article edit history), only a single source had been excerpted. Despite some selectivity of excerpting the information, and some creativity in the WP table design, as a table of specialist factual material derived from a single medical textbook (copyrighted source), I proposed to editors at that article that the use, at time of tagging, went beyond standard academic understandings of fair use. As this is a pervasive problem at WP, I applaud @User:Mikael Häggström for bringing this question to wider attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've commented there, to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- US Copyright law is clear here. Collections of facts, no matter how much skill and labor went into their compilation, are not protected. Their arrangement may be, but only if it is non-obvious, a natural arrangement such as alphabetical or chronological is not protected. The expression in individual entries may be protected, but not if there is only one or a few ways to express a fact. "John Doe was born in 1958" is not protected, nor is "Capsulation: Encapsulated". There is no infringement here. This should be closed. DES (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but neither your status at WP nor your professional credentials are sufficient to close an issue on the matter of copyright law. You may indeed be correct, but resorting to personal authority and bluster to close a discussion is inappropriate. This is a legal matter, and a formal legal voice should speak to it. From my experience, when tabular material in medical sources is lifted, the holder of the copyright of the overall work enters into copyright infringement proceedings to protect the non-fair use of their compiled work. Your stating otherwise here may align in the end with some authority with specific experience in this area (sci/tech tabular material, and the extent to which it is considered IP), but even so, such an expert needs to speak to the issue. Cribbing entire tables from published, in-copyright sources is rampant here, and your argument is that it is all fine—is far-reaching enough that I will have to hear it from someone with legal standing at WP. Otherwise it does not carry the conversation (or close the matter here). Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, as an administrator here at the English Wikipedia, DESiegel (t c) is fully qualified to make a conclusive determination on a copyright issue. There is nobody with "legal standing at [Wikipedia]" except the Wikimedia Foundation, and if you are waiting for legal counsel at the WMF to weigh in, you're in for a long wait — we have been told that WMF legal counsel will not give opinions on content matters on the individual WMF wikis. I am going to concur with DESiegel and call this matter closed. —Darkwind (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but neither your status at WP nor your professional credentials are sufficient to close an issue on the matter of copyright law. You may indeed be correct, but resorting to personal authority and bluster to close a discussion is inappropriate. This is a legal matter, and a formal legal voice should speak to it. From my experience, when tabular material in medical sources is lifted, the holder of the copyright of the overall work enters into copyright infringement proceedings to protect the non-fair use of their compiled work. Your stating otherwise here may align in the end with some authority with specific experience in this area (sci/tech tabular material, and the extent to which it is considered IP), but even so, such an expert needs to speak to the issue. Cribbing entire tables from published, in-copyright sources is rampant here, and your argument is that it is all fine—is far-reaching enough that I will have to hear it from someone with legal standing at WP. Otherwise it does not carry the conversation (or close the matter here). Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.